Friday, January 16, 2009

Oo... interesting note on Deans' letter to CUPE 3903.

David Doorey, who's been back-and-forth over the York strike, has posted something very interesting regarding the legality of the Deans' letter I posted below. I've clipped Doorey's blog just to the minimum, but go read the whole thing.
Have York Deans Violated the Labour Relations Act? ...

Keep in mind that for most of strikers, their de facto employer–the person they take orders from and must answer to–include the full-time professors (a minority of whom have also taken it upon themselves to lobby the strikers to accept the employer’s offer) and the Deans of their faculties. So the question for the law school exam is: Does the notice from Deans amount to a violation of:

(1) Section 70, which prevents employers, or persons acting on behalf of employers, from interfering with the administration of a union, but does not prevent the expression of opinions that are not threatening or intimidating and that do not amount to “undue influence”.

(2) section 72, which prohibits employers, or persons acting on behalf of employers, from making any kind of threat that intends to compel a striker from exercising the legal right to strike;

(3) section 73, which prevents employers, or persons acting on behalf of employers, from bargaining directly with unionized employees, and thereby by-passing the union; or

(4) section 76, which prevents anyone from intimidating an employee for the purposes of compelling them to cease engaging in a lawful strike. ...
My money is on a combination of (3) and (4).

No comments: